On the video reffing issue, there's now no reason to not have 3, or even 5 referees all watching the game from different angles on monitors in real time, and calling the issues as if they were reffing the real game.

Any stop by the real ref over a contentious decision, the monitoring refs already have their opinion made (decision by a majority vote, if necessary).

I think in rugby you get more interruption because of the nature of the sport. Push over tries, foot in touch for wingers that kind of thing. I genuinely think that for most football matches it wouldn't be used.

I watched a few games of rugby that I think have been slowed up and ruined by video replays. I don't know whether it was because they were over doing it, but in a sport like rugby or football, the decision needs to be quick or it damages the sport as a spectacle. On the other hand, I think cricket benefits from it because there are natural breaks and the video replay itself adds a certain ampunt of tension and excitement to the process.

I think the Bournemouth 3rd would be relatively simple though because they are able to stop player at the point a ball is played forward, and draw a line across the last defender. They did this on TV proving that he was off.

What Robert Madley did was purely because of the abuse he received from the fans when he allowed Francis to nearly decapitate Kouyte. He took it personally and made sure he’d cost us a win knowing full well he’ll receive no punishment. It was no error of judgement it was payback for an egomaniac.

I think video also saves the time that is wasted with players surrounding the ref and so on. I remember similar arguments about 'flow' when it was introduced in rugby, but now it's seen as a vital part of the refereeing process. generally it's not going to be used in most games because most don't have particularly contentious decisions.

I also think it would enhance the authority of the referee simply by removing the resentment currently felt when players feel a game changing decision has incorrectly gone against them.

One of the things that I love about football is the generally flow. But you could introduce video stuff only in game when things are significantly stopped, like a goal or a penalty.

You could also skip the step the NFL does, where it has to be referee who reviews it, if you wanted to keep it going faster.

The reasoning for that is that it maintains the authority of the ref, I think. Whether that is helpful, I don't know but with today's technology, you can the last 5-10 seconds being cued up constantly, and the guy in the booth could be done in less minute. Is that too long?

The practical question then becomes must you have a standard number of cameras so every game is fair and at what level to do start making that a rule.

It just needs video for certain decisions. I can't see any problem with it, it does nothing but good in rugby as far as I can see. Goal/not goal, (ie offside and the like), penalty/not penalty, sending off/not sending off, and even these could be limited to the marginal calls.

Ridiculous not to have it, and it just produces the sort of dickheads we're getting as referees. The standard is absolutely appalling at the moment.

Referees particularly never seem to admit they were wrongMadley still hasn’t given a plausible explanation and just spoke a load of gibberish to Moyes.I think fans would appreciate gestures like the lino admitting an error as painful as it is to take at the time.